Sometimes, Middle Eastern and Western commentators on American foreign policy overlook that American contact with the Middle East far predated the creation of the state of Israel.
Don't let the headlines fool you - We adhered to a pro-Arab foreign policy for decades. Then that position was amended by Truman with recognition of Israel. Then the reversal of positions evolved - not because of some "Jewish takeover" (rolls eyes) of American foreign policy, rather its takeover of American foreign policy by the Cold War, which rated higher as a concern than goings-on in the Holy Land.
Due to economic and strategic interest, Americans weren't going to stop supporting the oil-rich monarchies. And due to traditional prerogatives, countries like Saudi Arabia definitely had no truck with Communism. All they had to do was look across the Red Sea and what was happening in Egypt under Nasser, or north across the Gulf at what could have happened under Mossadegh in Iran... but we'll never know for sure.
Because the Iranian people weren't given the least bit of respect in that decision.
So, American foreign policy in the Middle East had an eye on oil first, preserving the monarchies and traditional Sunni dominance in those states next, then protecting Israel - because all three things really annoyed nationalist movements in relatively oil-poor countries that, being outside the favor of the Americans, sought patronage elsewhere. And thus America added anti-communism and, by definition anti-nationalism to its Middle East agenda.
Of course, those last two priorities materialized rather swiftly in a country called Iran. You know it. It's a real gem of a country. Vast, populous, well-educated, oil-rich ... with a strong national identity, historical affinities with Russia as a check against the expansion of British power, uneasy relations with its Sunni brethren across the Gulf and in the early 1950s making a go at representative parlimentary democracy.
And it had the temerity to vote for a regime that reflected its values as a society.
That could not be allowed to stand.
And, so, as much as could possibly be done, the Persian monarchy was restored under the Pahlavis, glorified and empowered by lavish American aid, all in the name of progress and of course sticking it to the Soviets. It also mollified both Israel and the Sunni kingdoms that Iran was not free to become a much more powerful version of Egypt, which while belligerent was quickly proving itself incompetent as a military threat against the Jewish state..and not especially threatening in its other not as widely-publicized war with Saudi Arabia in Yemen later on.
The Iran that could have been. Out there is another universe, where Mossadegh was the first of a succession of sovereign US allies in the Third World, wanting no more than its fair share of control over its own national resources. In that universe, for the price of giving other countries a little bit more respect, most of the planet could have been rendered skeptical of totalitarian rule of any stripe, and the peace and prosperity of much of the world secured for far less blood and treasure.
Imagine that world where the doctrine of "Millions for defense, but not one cent of fair market value compensation!" never caught on. Imagine what might have happened in, say, Guatemala, if United Fruit had not had such a problem receiving full compensation for uncultivated land during the the democratically elected Arbenz government's land reform program. Just imagine if United Fruit had declared what it felt all that uncultivated land was worth when it filed its May 1952 tax returns in Guatemala...not a value that it knew was grossly understated. Imagine if United Fruit, recognized the price of its greed but acknowledging, heh, we still get to keep our quite lucrative plantations, had just eaten the difference quietly and continued to do business in Guatemala to the profit of Guatemalans and Americans alike.
Alas, that's not our universe and in ours, the real one, the United States was willing by early 1952 to get a coup d'etat rolling in a small Latin American country over bananas. This was not an American government was going to exert itself far more mightily over control of an oil-rich country of importance in its Cold War strategy.
And thus all the things that made Iran proud - its patriotism, history, self-respect, natural wealth, civilization, its religion and its independence most of all - were rendered detestable liabilities in the eyes of the West, and the Americans most of all.
And same as with Guatemala, with Indonesia, with a host of other countries that committed the unpardonable epic fail of expecting American business interests to play by their laws, so amusingly similar in form and intent to American customs - Iran too lost in a truly heartbreaking betrayal.
And everyone who was part of that coup d'etat knew how it was ultimately going to go down, if the world had that kind of time. But it was the 1950s. No one knew how much longer the world was going to last. There was in the backs of everyone's minds the scenario where everything died from radioactive fallout in the aftermath of a Third World War. And as that apocalyptic mindset creeped through and through every aspect of the leadership culture, the world suffered. After all, if it's all going to end in a few years, anyway, if that's the attitude, long-term consequences don't really factor into the decisionmaking process. If an electoral outcome offends you, either here or there, and you have the means to dispose of that result - you dispose of it.
And Iran learned this bitter lesson well. Many countries in the world did. And it was justified in Washington as the necessary price of preserving the American way of life. What that meant in hindsight was doing whatever it took, even obliterating entire other countries if need be, to create a bubble of relatively blissful oblivion here in central North America, of cultivating not just an ignorance of news from elsewhere on the planet but an active disdain of being informed about world events.
And, ultimately, a culture of not minding the dirty necessities of preserving American oblivion to its own dark side, at home as well as abroad. And that sometimes required not minding reversing inconvenient electoral outcomes or - this being a much more efficient practice - coopting movements that may have started out as having reformist, even radical, credentials and vaporizing them in the white-hot crucible of power in Washington.
Which brings us to the yet-to-be-named uprising in Iran, following the 2009 presidential election there.
We are seeing in the Mousavi-inspired Green Movement a resurgence of every good thing that Iranians feel about Iran - many of which have long been co-opted in support of the theocratic regime. It is a declaration of independence from the mullahs, that what is good about Iran is not dependent on their interpretation of the suras, or mystical insights into Allah's will. That a little separation between the State and God is a good thing. Or, more practically, that it is possible to try too hard at the impossible, that since past a certain point no one can replicate the society of Heaven on Earth, perhaps it is not just fruitless but sinful to try to excess.
And this is a message that could resonate throughout all Islam - Same as the Ummah of Pilgrimage - It is good and needful to seek the godly life. It is haram to compel to the point of harm an imperfect understanding of it. And it is manifest that the current regime in Iran has a very imperfect understanding of the will of Allah.
And this is the message now going out, from sources with far more ecclesiastical credibility with the Iranian people than myself.
Now imagine a similar message being expressed in America - Yes, do your religious duty as you see fit. But don't even think of trying to impose your teachings on me.
Oh, that's right. We do say this, and have for over two hundred and twenty years. It's called the Separation of Church and State. It's called - We the People, in order to form a more perfect Union, are expressly kicking the clergy out of government because, like, it worked "so well" before. Not.
And now we may be seeing a similar transition in Iran. It's happened elsewhere; the Ba'athi movement in Syria, Egypt and (of late) Iraq but this was secularism imposed at gunpoint, which if Iraq is any indication just defers the strife for a later day and sets up a reaction. Of course, all one had to do was look at the experience in Iran.
Oh, what miseries we could have spared ourselves and the world, what blood and treasure we could have saved, what easy and peaceful and profitable achievements are now delayed, perhaps left undone for good... for the price of according other societies the least additional increment of respect.
And that is why, now, we are seeing the Iranian people demand their self-respect back. And why they are not going to just melt away, even if there is a replication of Tiannanmen by the instruments of reaction in Iran.
As for what it means to the right here? It is clear; even in a society where there is no easy way to express the concept 'separation of faith and state', theocracy is losing, and it is losing in a country where the clerics have held the keys to the kingdom for thirty years, where two generations of Iranians have grown up knowing little but the Revolution and tales of the Great Satan plotting their ruin at every turn.
And regardless, they blog and they call and they email and they tweet - in English - to a largely American audience.
They are doing far more than crying for help. They are doing far more than reporting news and events that governments and corporate marketing would rather not notice. They are doing more than saying things are changing here.
They are saying hello.
And that's something awesome to witness.